SAM Party of New York v. Cuomo

Background

The plaintiffs were the SAM Party of New York, its chairman Michael A. Volpe, the Working Families Party of New York State, several Working Families Party officials and supporters, and related party organizations. They sued Todd D. Valentine, Robert A. Brehm, Peter S. Kosinski, Douglas A. Kellner, and Andrew J. Spano in their official capacities as officials or commissioners of the New York State Board of Elections. The suits were brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state officials for alleged violations of federal rights.

New York amended its Election Law in April 2020. To qualify as a recognized political party, an organization’s candidate for governor or president had to receive the greater of 130,000 votes or 2 percent of the votes cast in the most recent presidential or gubernatorial election. Because gubernatorial elections occur in different years from presidential elections, parties had to meet the requirement every two years. Recognized parties received benefits including automatic ballot access for certain races, participation in party primaries, placement on voter-registration forms, and access to certain party accounts. Organizations that did not qualify could still seek ballot access through independent nominating petitions or write-in candidacies.

The SAM Party had qualified under the former rule by receiving more than 50,000 votes for its gubernatorial candidates in 2018. It claimed that it would not run a presidential candidate in 2020 and therefore would lose party status under the amended law. The Working Families Party had run presidential candidates in each of the five presidential elections preceding the opinion and challenged both the new vote threshold and the biennial qualification method. Both sets of plaintiffs alleged violations of the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment, including rights involving speech, political association, equal protection, and due process.

Motions and legal standard

Both groups sought preliminary injunctions, which are temporary court orders issued before a final judgment. To obtain one against government action taken under a statute, the plaintiffs had to show likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without an injunction, and that the public interest and balance of hardships favored relief. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed under the ordinary standard, so it did not need to decide whether a more demanding standard for changing the existing situation applied.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the balancing approach used for constitutional challenges to election laws. Under that approach, the court weighs the burden on speech and political association against the state’s asserted interests. Severe burdens require stronger justification; lesser burdens can be supported by sufficiently important and reasonable state interests.

The court found that the new requirements did not impose a severe burden. It reasoned that political parties do not have a constitutional right to appear on the ballot, although their supporters’ associational rights are affected by ballot restrictions. The court also emphasized that New York continued to provide other routes to the ballot, including independent nominating petitions and write-in candidacies. The SAM Party was not legally required to nominate its own presidential candidate or cross-designate another party’s candidate; it could choose not to seek official party status and use other ballot-access methods.

The court rejected the argument that the rules improperly interfered with the parties’ internal affairs. It stated that the requirements did not control the parties’ primary processes, internal structure, governance, policymaking, endorsements, or ability to communicate with voters. The court also concluded that the 130,000-vote or 2-percent threshold was within the range of ballot-access requirements upheld in other cases and that measuring support through statewide election results every two years was a reasonable method of determining continuing public support.

The court identified New York’s interests as avoiding overcrowded and confusing ballots, preventing frivolous or fraudulent candidacies, ensuring that candidates receive a sufficient level of voter support, and maintaining an efficient public campaign-finance system. It held that these interests were sufficiently important to justify the challenged requirements and that the requirements were reasonable and nondiscriminatory. The court further held that the Working Families Party had not shown the stronger likelihood of success needed for its facial challenge, which asserted that the law was invalid in all applications.

The court separately found that the plaintiffs had not shown irreparable harm. The Working Families Party’s concern that it might fail to obtain enough votes in the November election was speculative, and the court stated that it could seek relief later if that occurred. The SAM Party’s claimed harm from changing its political strategy was also insufficient, particularly because it retained other ways to place candidates on the ballot and communicate with voters.

Finally, the court concluded that the balance of hardships and the public interest did not favor an injunction. Although the rules could create burdens and practical difficulties for the plaintiffs, the court found those concerns outweighed by New York’s interests in implementing its election reforms without delay.

Disposition

The court denied the SAM Party plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and denied the Working Families Party plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. It directed the Clerk to close all pending motions. The opinion did not state that the cases themselves were dismissed or that the underlying claims received a final judgment.